Posted on 04/28/2003 2:25:50 PM PDT by Remedy
The Rick Santorum controversy has illuminated a serious problem in the Republican Party: its leaders seem woefully ill-prepared to defend the pro-family position on homosexuality. As an attorney who trains pro-family activists how to debate this issue, I would like to offer my fellow Republicans the following advice.
First, don't dodge the issue in fear of political correctness or pro-"gay" media bias. Stand confidently upon the essential pro-family presuppositions that resonate with people of common sense: 1) normality is that which functions according to its design, 2) the heterosexual design of the human body and the natural family is self-evident, 3) respecting the design of life produces good results (conversely, rejecting that design produces bad results) and 4) simple observation validates these assumptions. No special education or "scientific" study is required.
Failure to articulate the logic of our position cedes the moral and intellectual battleground to the militant "gays," and leaves the impression (even among our own supporters) that we have no reasonable response, other than religious belief, to their attack on family values.
Second, contest the hidden false assumption underlying most pro-"gay" arguments that homosexuality is immutable. We have a strong case on this point since 1) proponents of the "gays are born that way" justification for normalizing homosexuality bear the burden of proof, 2) proof is absolutely necessary due to the severity of social change which is contemplated by their demands, 3) proponents cannot prove that homosexuality is immutable (Indeed, ex-homosexuals can prove that it is not.), 3) if homosexuality is not immutable, then logically it must be acquired (children being the most likely to acquire the condition because of their vulnerability to social conditioning), and 4) society must err on the side of caution, actively discouraging the normalization of homosexuality in order to protect children and others from the possibility of acquiring a homosexual condition with its attendant health risks.
Third, expose the deceptive terms, such as sexual orientation, diversity and homophobia, which are used by pro-"gay" proponents to confuse the issue and control the debate. This requires nothing but making them define their terms at the start of argument, then focusing the debate on clarifying the definitions and exposing their illogic and hypocrisy.
Consider sexual orientation, for example. Does orientation mean "state of mind" or conduct? If it includes conduct, which conduct? Does it include sodomy? Fisting? Rimming? Sadism? If not, why not? Regarding diversity, what is the standard used to decide who gets to be in the circle of inclusion? They don't have one, but you'll have fun with this -- especially if they attempt to draw the line at "hate" groups. What is their definition of hate? (and by that definition, do they "hate" us and thereby invalidate their own membership in the community of diversity?) Speaking of hate, remember that they have defined homophobia as "hate and fear of homosexuals." Ask them to identify some examples of non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. They can't do it because they define all opposition as "homophobic." Do they really believe that disapproval of sodomy/rimming/fisting/sadism is irrational bigotry? You get the idea. You'll find that this technique derails virtually every pro-"gay" argument because each one relies on deceptive rhetoric.
Fourth and finally, get off the defensive and take the offensive on the homosexual issue by purging "gay" activism from the Republican Party. The implicit goal of the "gay" movement is the normalization of an anything-goes sexual morality -- the antithesis of the family values so dear to our Republican base. Instead of inviting into our tent the very constituency that many Republicans have spent years and fortunes opposing, why not conduct a meaningful family-values outreach to ethnic minorities? Let the Democrats continue to be the party of sexual deviance and let us exploit that identification to woo away their healthy families to the higher Republican standard.
What is needed from Republican leaders is articulate, confident and continual advocacy of the pro-family world view. Without it, we might as well say farewell to Rick Santorum and other defenders of family values, because if things continue as they are, these courageous people will have no place in the future GOP, the Gays' Other Party.
So what is your 'version'?
Interesting. You don't want others "shoving" their "versions" down *your* throat, but you seem quite comfortable enforcing your version as an article of public policy.
No. I want you and those who promote deviancy to stay the hell away from me and my kids...and I don't want one of my tax dollars going to promote your destructive 'lifestyle choices'.
How do you resolve the contradiction? Can you imagine some sort of happy compromise where we all get to pursue our own "versions" without passing laws against one another?
No contradiction on my part--and no.
Aside from a few doctrinal subtleties, how are you different than any mullah?
If anyone is acting like a mullah, it's you--trying to enforce your twisted worldview on my and my family, with my resources.
... Inherent within these powers lies the duty to regulate the "health, safety, and morals" of their members ...Cool. So if a majority of Americans decided that what you would want to call devient sexual conduct were, indeed, "moral," then they could pass regulations criminalizing your lifestyle.
The vast majority of Americans believe in tolerance, not the fundamentalist/bigoted views articulated in this post.
Condemnation of homosexuality, however, is by no means directed at specific ancient rituals alone. Among the cardinal sins of Judaism, which one is bidden to lay down his life rather than engage in, are murder, idolatry and "gilui arayot," the immoral uncovering of nakedness (Lev. 18), which includes adultery, incest and homosexuality. Indeed, the Torah reserves its most intense condemnation for homosexuality:
"to'eva" - abomination...
If anyone is acting like a mullah, it's you--trying to enforce your twisted worldview on my and my family, with my resources.I want nothing from you but to be left alone. You're the one railing against human sexuality, or at least those expressions of it you find objectionable. So, again, how are you different from any mullah?
LOL...you all are so funny...thinking that your views reflect any kind of majority of anything, much less the GOP.
Wait, I guess you could work up a consensus---in a gay bar, or in a Democrat caucus....
NO KIDDING!!!!
The homosexual agenda that is being pushed--even at the fringes of the GOP--is an attempt to normalize such behavior, to teach it to my children using my tax dollars, and to gain civil rights status for destructive behavior.
Go back in the closet, and you won't hear a peep out of me.
Since the first federal resources were made available to state and local health agencies for AIDS prevention in 1985, federal funding, which now includes money for research, treatment, and housing, has skyrocketed to $13 billion for fiscal 2003. As a result of the work of highly mobilized lobbying forces, more is spent per patient on AIDS than on any other disease, though it does not even currently rank among the top 15 causes of death in the United States. In one year, 1998, heart disease, the nation's leading cause of death, killed 724,859 Americans only 6.8 percent less than the 774,767 who have contracted AIDS in the last 20 years.2 Of those 774,767 total AIDS cases, 462,766 have died. During that same period, 14 million Americans 30 times more have died of heart disease.
Research expenditures at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) demonstrate the uneven use of federal resources. In 1996, NIH spent an average of $1,160 for every heart disease death, $4,700 for every cancer death, and a whopping $43,000 for every AIDS death.3 Even though they get far less research money, that year heart disease killed 24 times more and cancer killed 17 times more than the number of people who died from AIDS in 1996, when AIDS was still the seventh leading cause of death in the U.S.
Good grief! (Now excuse me while I go and throw up.)
I can. It would involve using no tax dollars to pay for the results of reckless behavior; removal of all pro-gay propaganda from public institutions; and restoring the right of free association so that people who are truly turned off by homosexual behavior can exclude it from their private lives and property.
With it out of my wallet, my school, and my face, I'll be happy to live and let live.
To quote from Kipling's "The Portent"
Whence public strife and naked crime And -- deadlier than the cup you shun-- A people schooled to mock, in time, All law--not one. Cease, then, to fashion State-made sin, Nor give thy children cause to doubt That Virtue springs from Iron within-- Not lead without.
Keep and enforce laws with regard to what consenting adults do in private and you will make a society that has no respect for the law as a whole.
Go back in the closet, and you won't hear a peep out of me.What does going "back into the closet" entail, precisely? Are you saying that we should simply be discreet, but otherwise we should be free to pursue happiness as we choose to define it? Or is this like some sort of national, "don't ask, don't tell" policy? OR does this mean that you get to pass laws against the sorts of sexual behaviors that you don't like? Or what? I mean, why should your "version" of the world be privileged over anyone else's? Please advise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.